Politico is reporting that in 2016 (Under Obama Presidency), FBI / Homeland security states that Antifa conducts "domestic terrorist violence". Not a good look for the left, especially in the wake of recent events.

Not a good look for Antifa, anyway. Not sure it's fair to lump the whole of "the left" in with the most extreme members. That said, this realisation that Antifa are not the good guys has been a long time coming.

SlyReaper wrote:Not a good look for Antifa, anyway. Not sure it's fair to lump the whole of "the left" in with the most extreme members. That said, this realisation that Antifa are not the good guys has been a long time coming.

Your fashionable contempt for semi-violent anti-fascists is noted.

EDIT: Really, though -- there's plenty of reasons to be concerned about the issue of escalation; there's plenty of reasons to reject violence as an appropriate response to violence. But at the end of the day, only one side involved in this conflict has actually murdered people. And that side isn't Antifa.

Also: The government labeled a semi-violent organization that's opposed to capitalism, fascism, and totalitarianism as a terrorist organization? Holy shit, what a twist! It's almost like governments don't like organizations willing to respond to violent tyranny with violence!

You don't need to think of the Antifa as saints or heroes, and I'm sure they've done some pretty fucked up shit at some point (though they've yet to kill anyone, apparently). But I think we also need to understand what they are: A response to the sort of person who will slit your throat and watch you die because they don't like the color of your skin.

Also, antifa contains rather a lot of anarchists. It's not a very big surprise that a centralised government opposes and denigrates anarchist movements by whatever means they can. Regardless of the level of threat they represent to individuals, they are an openly avowed threat to the institution of centralised government itself.

I'm not saying that the antifa are all wonderful people, just that I wouldn't trust a government assessment of any group with significant anarchist leaning. That's never going to be unbiased

SlyReaper wrote:Not a good look for Antifa, anyway. Not sure it's fair to lump the whole of "the left" in with the most extreme members. That said, this realisation that Antifa are not the good guys has been a long time coming.

You should consider the symmetry of that statement. The endpoints bracket the center, neither all the left or all the right are at the endpoints. A point often forgotten here.

SlyReaper wrote:Not a good look for Antifa, anyway. Not sure it's fair to lump the whole of "the left" in with the most extreme members. That said, this realisation that Antifa are not the good guys has been a long time coming.

Your fashionable contempt for semi-violent anti-fascists is noted.

Semi-violent? What's that supposed to mean? They're violent. They attack people with bats and bottles, pepper spray and fists. You call them anti-fascist, why would you use the name they give themselves? Very rarely do they actually go after fascists. Besides Charlottesville, the only other time I can remember them bashing some actual fash is when one of them punched Richard Spencer.

EDIT: Really, though -- there's plenty of reasons to be concerned about the issue of escalation; there's plenty of reasons to reject violence as an appropriate response to violence. But at the end of the day, only one side involved in this conflict has actually murdered people. And that side isn't Antifa.

#NotAllNazis, right?

Also: The government labeled a semi-violent organization that's opposed to capitalism, fascism, and totalitarianism as a terrorist organization? Holy shit, what a twist! It's almost like governments don't like organizations willing to respond to violent tyranny with violence!

Violent tyranny? Are we still talking about the fascists here? They're not tyrannising anyone. They have no ability to oppress anyone, because they're a fringe minority that almost everyone rightly despises, who have no political power and no realistic prospect of ever getting political power.

You don't need to think of the Antifa as saints or heroes, and I'm sure they've done some pretty fucked up shit at some point (though they've yet to kill anyone, apparently). But I think we also need to understand what they are: A response to the sort of person who will slit your throat and watch you die because they don't like the color of your skin.

Too bad they so rarely confront fascists then, isn't it. They're normally content to go fuck up people queuing up for a Milo talk, go smash up a city centre where the G20 conference is being held, or attack any rally that has "free speech" in the name, because they've convinced themselves that "free speech" is a dog whistle for fascism. A lot of people DO seem to think antifa are saints and heroes, and until the last week or so, there didn't seem to be many mainstream voices calling them out on their bullshit.

morriswalters wrote:

SlyReaper wrote:Not a good look for Antifa, anyway. Not sure it's fair to lump the whole of "the left" in with the most extreme members. That said, this realisation that Antifa are not the good guys has been a long time coming.

You should consider the symmetry of that statement. The endpoints bracket the center, neither all the left or all the right are at the endpoints. A point often forgotten here.

That point is not lost on me - sorry if I gave the impression that it was. Yeah, it's not fair to lump "the right" in with the fascists either.

SlyReaper, your inability or unwillingness to remember something doesn't make it unreal.

And property damage isn't the same as violence against people, so yes, just semiviolent. Only the fascists have shown up to protests with guns and a willingness to use them.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Antifa is doing more than just "property damage" mate. They're showing up with sticks and beating people at these protests-turn-into-riots. The blac-block faction of the left are a bunch of jackasses and it seems like they've rolled themselves up with Antifa.

Everyone here is on the same page with regards to facisist and neoNazis. The question now is: are you on the same page to denounce the violence on the left? Because at this point, the left-wing violence has been documented at Berkley and other recent protests.

But I understand bootlickers gonna bootlick, so obviously it remains important to you to virtue-signal your fair and balanced perspective that violence against Nazis is just as bad as (and more worth constantly bringing up than) being a Nazi oneself.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

“That is an outright lie that this mayor is propagating,” she said, of Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín. “White supremacy is not allowed at my rally. We do not want racist people there. We do not want hateful people there.”Amber Cummings. Photo: Emilie Raguso

She continued: “We also do not want violent people there. If anybody is coming with the intent of violence, do not come to my rally.”

Cummings said her event would be “a diverse rally” that would include several transgender women as well as “people of all colors.”

Amber Cummings was organizing an anti-Marxism rally. She canceled the event when it became clear that it'd be violent, but people showed up anyway and they got beaten by Antifa.

Antifa is doing more than just "property damage" mate. They're showing up with sticks and beating people at these protests-turn-into-riots.

If that's the case, that's fucked up and terrible -- but anyone who compares them to actual Nazis (neo or otherwise) seriously needs to shut the hell up and get some fucking perspective.

One is a largely de-centralized grass-roots protest movement that's potentially degenerated into free-form violence and intimidation; the other is the continuation of an ideology responsible for the industrialized murder of millions upon millions of people. One might be irresponsibly punching its targets; the other has murdered -- and will continue to murder -- its targets. One hasn't killed anybody; one has killed, is killing, and will continue to kill.

Anyone whining about any sort of 'moral equivalency' between the two does not understand the difference between people who are angry and violent and people who are murdering you.

Look, there are left-wing terrorists who have guns and are perfectly willing to kill Republicans for no reason aside from the fact that they're Republican. Perhaps that man "James T. Hodgkinson" isn't a representative of Antifa, but lets be frank here: no one person or group represents "Right-wing violence" either.

I think people have reason to be frightened of the rise of Political Violence in today's age.

So out of the fairly lengthy response I posted, you pick out the one memey bit and call me juvenile? Then allow me to make my point more explicit. Normally, when one member of a group does something evil, we don't blame the entire group. We blame the individual(s) who actually carried out the atrocity. The most obvious example being whenever there's an islamic terror attack in Europe or America, the hashtag #NotAllMuslims becomes extremely popular. But when it's a white nationalist that does something evil, then the whole group of white nationalists is blamed. It's a double standard that needs to be pointed out. I thought I could do that more succinctly by posting "#NotAllNazis".

gmalivuk wrote:SlyReaper, your inability or unwillingness to remember something doesn't make it unreal.

Okay, I'll bite. What is it I'm forgetting? I'm looking at their wikipedia page (linky), and Charlottesville is the only incident listed where fascists were in attendance. It's not a complete list - it doesn't mention Trump's inauguration - so I'm willing to entertain the idea I might be unaware of something.

And property damage isn't the same as violence against people, so yes, just semiviolent. Only the fascists have shown up to protests with guns and a willingness to use them.

Indeed property damage is not the same as violence against people. This is a complete non sequitur, because Antifa do both.

Look, there are left-wing terrorists who have guns and are perfectly willing to kill Republicans.

We're not talking about extreme left-wing terrorists; we're also not talking about extreme right-wing terrorists. We are talking about Antifa and Nazis/Neo-Nazis. Those are two specific groups who have done specific things.

Or are you just making a blanket accusation that the Antifa are responsible for whatever random news story you pulled up?

SlyReaper wrote:So out of the fairly lengthy response I posted, you pick out the one memey bit and call me juvenile?

As a rule, I don't discuss complex issues with people incapable of not comparing a group they dislike with Nazis.

Look, there are left-wing terrorists who have guns and are perfectly willing to kill Republicans.

We're not talking about extreme left-wing terrorists; we're also not talking about extreme right-wing terrorists. We are talking about Antifa and Nazis/Neo-Nazis. Those are two specific groups who have done specific things.

And I'm not trying to compare the two. I'm simply pointing out that, unfortunately, there is truly violence on both sides as Trump has said.

And it pains me to have to say Trump is correct on this issue. But that's the facts. Believe it or not, Trump isn't comparing Neo-Nazis with Antifa. His statements are vague and purposefully allow people to interpret it however they want. Trump isn't a leader and just says whatever the fuck he wants, letting the crowd do whatever they want with his words.

In today's society, political violence is on the rise. And reasonable people can be concerned about that.

Although maybe not. I mean, Blac Block has always existed in Berkeley / Pacific Northwest, so maybe that's just a "normal" protest on that side of the country now that I think of it. But seriously, people need to condemn the violence. And yes, "on all sides", as long as this shit continues to happen on both sides.

anyone who can seriously talk about "the rise of political violence in today's society" in the u.s. with a straight face is talking from such a blatantly ahistorical disingenuous position that i honestly don't even know where to start. there has literally never been a time in america that was not rife with political violence, and it's particularly galling to me as a black person (given the preponderance of black political leaders thru us history who have been assassinated as well as the targeted violence that has been used against black and native movements since always) that someone can sit here and pretend that this is some new phenomenon. individual violence as well as active state violence has been a critical part of civil rights repression since literally always and if you pretend that political violence is new and On The Rise because some anarchists threw bottles at windows and punched some nazis it is more telling of your priorities about what violence is acceptable than about the actual prevalence of political violence in the country.

You want to know the future, love? Then wait:I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

KnightExemplar wrote:And I'm not trying to compare the two. I'm simply pointing out that, unfortunately, there is truly violence on both sides as Trump has said.

And it pains me to have to say Trump is correct on this issue. But that's the facts. Believe it or not, Trump isn't comparing Neo-Nazis with Antifa. His statements are vague and purposefully allow people to interpret it however they want. Trump isn't a leader and just says whatever the fuck he wants, letting the crowd do whatever they want with his words.

In today's society, political violence is on the rise. And reasonable people can be concerned about that.

Okay, first off, I'm not convinced political violence is 'on the rise' -- rather, it seems much more likely to me you're just getting that sense because we exist in a news cycle slanted to sensationalize every story until it looks like the end of the world. America has a rich, long, storied history when it comes to political violence; I don't see anything here that looks significantly more intense than anarchist bombings or riots from the past century. Second off, you quoted me, not Trump, and it was pretty clear that I wasn't talking about left-wing extremism in the general sense.

Third off: Yes, Trump is right in the most trivial sense. There is violence on both sides. Pointing this out in no way addresses the actual problem. In fact, it just confuses the issue, because now we have to talk about the violence of groups like Antifa in the same sentence wherein we're discussing the violence of actual Neo-Nazis.

EDIT: Ninja'd by natraj.

SlyReaper wrote:I have done no such thing.

SlyReaper wrote:#NotAllNazis, right?

Now that we've qualified that the problem here was your failure to understand what words mean, I presume we can move on.

By mentioning Antifa and Nazis in the same sentence and grouping them both under the umbrella of political violence about which we should be concerned, you are indeed comparing them. But since I suspect you're not stupid enough to not understand that, I'm forced to conclude that you're either trolling spectacularly or taking devil's advocacy to its ridiculous extreme.

Well okay, if you want to stretch the word "compare" like that, let's compare Antifa and Nazis!1) Both groups consist of humans2) Members of both groups have two arms3) Members of both groups have two legs4) Members of both groups have eyes, ears, noses, and mouths5) Members of both groups have engaged in political violence

I mean, are any of these things inaccurate? You seem to take umbrage with the 5th point, but it's a proven fact. This, to you, means comparing Nazis and Antifa?

SlyReaper wrote:Well okay, if you want to stretch the word "compare" like that, let's compare Antifa and Nazis!1) Both groups consist of humans2) Members of both groups have two arms3) Members of both groups have two legs4) Members of both groups have eyes, ears, noses, and mouths5) Members of both groups have engaged in political violence

I mean, are any of these things inaccurate? You seem to take umbrage with the 5th point, but it's a proven fact. This, to you, means comparing Nazis and Antifa?

The Great Hippo wrote:As a rule, I don't discuss complex issues with people incapable of not comparing a group they dislike with Nazis.

The point wasn't that it's impossible to compare them, the point was that you seem incapable of not doing so.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

The Great Hippo wrote:EDIT: Really, though -- there's plenty of reasons to be concerned about the issue of escalation; there's plenty of reasons to reject violence as an appropriate response to violence. But at the end of the day, only one side involved in this conflict has actually murdered people. And that side isn't Antifa.

#NotAllNazis, right?

I point out that one side of this conflict is the continuation of a political ideology directly responsible for murdering millions; you respond with a frivolous meme implying that this position amounts to '#NotAllNazis'. Even if your intent wasn't to make a comparison, the frivolity implied you didn't consider this a salient point; for you, the distinction didn't (apparently) appear to be an important one. If you thought it was, you would have said something more like: "Yeah, fine, they're not Nazis -- but they're still fucking reprehensible".

The fact that I have to spell this out for you either implies 1) You are really failing at communication, 2) You are trolling the fuck out of me (in which case, WELL DONE), or 3) Both.

Either way, I'm glad we can at least all agree that the Antifa aren't in any (reasonable) way comparable to the Nazis they were protesting.

Unless, of course, you think burning someone with a match is comparable to burning them down with a flame-thrower.

The disturbing thing isn't that political violence is "on the rise". The disturbing thing is that political violence has the endorsement of the President of the United States". This is true despite that mealy-mouthed "on both sides" fake denunciation he uttered. Trump campaigned on violence. He continues to encourage it, explicitly ("rough them up a bit") and implicitly (pardoning Arpaio, refusing to categorically condemn the Nazi violence in a timely manner). It is his base.

That is the relevant bit.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

natraj wrote:if you pretend that political violence is new and On The Rise because some anarchists threw bottles at windows and punched some nazis it is more telling of your priorities about what violence is acceptable than about the actual prevalence of political violence in the country.

It's almost as if he thinks violence done by the state and not targeting white people doesn't really count or something...

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

ucim wrote:The disturbing thing isn't that political violence is "on the rise". The disturbing thing is that political violence has the endorsement of the President of the United States". This is true despite that mealy-mouthed "on both sides" fake denunciation he uttered. Trump campaigned on violence. He continues to encourage it, explicitly ("rough them up a bit") and implicitly (pardoning Arpaio, refusing to categorically condemn the Nazi violence in a timely manner). It is his base.

That is the relevant bit.

Jose

I'm very skeptical regarding the notion that political violence is 'on the rise' (and suspect your use of quotations is meant to imply your own skepticism in that regard), but otherwise, I couldn't agree more: We have a President who is endorsing the use of violence to achieve his ends.

I think the only saving grace we have is that Trump lacks the military background that would help him understand the power of violence itself. If we were dealing with a war-vet version of Trump, I think we'd be in a much, much more terrifying place.

The Great Hippo wrote:EDIT: Really, though -- there's plenty of reasons to be concerned about the issue of escalation; there's plenty of reasons to reject violence as an appropriate response to violence. But at the end of the day, only one side involved in this conflict has actually murdered people. And that side isn't Antifa.

#NotAllNazis, right?

I point out that one side of this conflict is the continuation of a political ideology directly responsible for murdering millions; you respond with a frivolous meme implying that this position amounts to '#NotAllNazis'. Even if your intent wasn't to make a comparison, the frivolity implied you didn't consider this a salient point; for you, the distinction didn't (apparently) appear to be an important one. If you thought it was, you would have said something more like: "Yeah, fine, they're not Nazis -- but they're still fucking reprehensible".

The fact that I have to spell this out for you either implies 1) You are really failing at communication, 2) You are trolling the fuck out of me (in which case, WELL DONE), or 3) Both.

Either way, I'm glad we can at least all agree that the Antifa aren't in any (reasonable) way comparable to the Nazis they were protesting.

Unless, of course, you think burning someone with a match is comparable to burning them down with a flame-thrower.

The confusion is you're talking about historical Nazis, I was talking about the alt-right / white nationalists in Charlottesville. When you said only one side has killed, I assumed you meant the guy who drove into a crowd and killed someone. But it turns out you're talking about the original literal Nazis? Fine, we can all agree those guys were terrifying and evil. The current batch are just evil.

SlyReaper wrote:The confusion is you're talking about historical Nazis, I was talking about the alt-right / white nationalists in Charlottesville. When you said only one side has killed, I assumed you meant the guy who drove into a crowd and killed someone. But it turns out you're talking about the original literal Nazis? Fine, we can all agree those guys were terrifying and evil. The current batch are just evil.

...you're aware that Neo-Nazis have killed people too, right?

I'm not talking about historical Nazis. I'm talking about the Nazis in Charlottesville. The ones who were chanting 'Jews Will Not Replace Us'. Those guys.

They are evil, they are terrifying, and they have murdered more than one person.

SlyReaper wrote:The confusion is you're talking about historical Nazis, I was talking about the alt-right / white nationalists in Charlottesville. When you said only one side has killed, I assumed you meant the guy who drove into a crowd and killed someone. But it turns out you're talking about the original literal Nazis? Fine, we can all agree those guys were terrifying and evil. The current batch are just evil.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

SlyReaper wrote:Again, you ascribe things to me that I didn't say, imply, or even hint at. Is this going to be a running theme?

I haven't done it once (so not 'again'), and I wasn't actually directing that at you -- just at the general sentiment I've seen (specifically, this article, which pushes the notion that the Antifa is the moral equivalent of Neo-Nazis). Though I guess you might be a little sensitive -- given how, now that you understand that the Neo-Nazis at Charlottesville are part of a movement that is actively murdering people, your '#NotAllNazis' comment makes you look like an ignorant jackass.

But yeah. Historical Nazis are more terrifying than currently existing Nazis, which are still utterly terrifying and still murdering people pretty regularly. Unlike Antifa.

It's super important that we talk about Antifa in the wake of Charlottesville, though, right? Because they hit people at rallies.

Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

There's always been violence on all sides. For example, this famous photo from 40 years ago makes it seem like there's just violence on the left guy's side, but in reality the guy he's trying to hit with a flagpole was defacing public property with his own blood from an earlier assault. Basically two sides of the same coin, really.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

The Great Hippo wrote:It's super important that we talk about Antifa in the wake of Charlottesville, though, right? Because they hit people at rallies.

But you see this is exactly the point. We, and by that I mean you people over there in 'murica, don't necessarily want to move the conversation past the violence the left itself has committed. If you're already seeped in racism, and only the most overt of white nationalists, the ones that actually go outside and proudly proclaim themselves to be ACTUAL GODDAMN NAZIS, get called out at all, then the rest of the racists can just sit in peace wherever they are. You don't want to shake things up. Why is Trump in power? Well, the goddamn left did it. Why are people getting violent? The left did it! If we want to have control over the situation, well, gee, we need the left in check. And that means...arguing about why the Antifa smashed some windows.

To be less vague, I am specifically referring to the muddying of the waters by so called "moderates". As far as I can tell there are people who are so content with the status quo that any mention of violence not from the evil boogeyman seems wrong and unnecessary, which is a tragedy and a crime against those who have been continuously oppressed by the status quo. I really don't think any of that needs to be said over and over again, but it seems like people in the left still buy into that, and I'm left--pardon the wording--to wonder what their motives really are. The least insidious reason I can give is just being a wanker, er, an "intellectual" on the Internet, or just being plain ol' naive.

Like OBVIOUSLY you don't want a group of vigilantes killing people left and right (argh, sorry, I did it again). But again as far as I can tell, the antifa is not that. The article KE linked doesn't seem to me to be "antifa tried to kill republicans!" I guess I could be wrong.

suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.

Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome